Canon EOS R6 Mark III and Sony a7 V compared - Canon better specs but...

[Andrew Reid]

My thoughts on the blog.

https://www.eoshd.com/news/are-canon-back-on-top-in-specs-race-sony-a7-v-and-canon-eos-r6-mark-iii-comparison/

[ND64]

At the moment the best lens to body ratio in the market is like 1.7, and a lot of that is standing on the shoulder of kit lenses. Having third party option is good, but majority of people don't buy many lenses to begin with.

[Andrew Reid]

What does a lens to body ratio of 1.7 mean?

[EduPortas]

That each camera owner of a particular brand buys, in this case, 1.7 lenses for his camera.

From memory, almost all brands are below 2. So that means the aside from the kit lenses, buyers rarely ever consume another lens for the camera body.

[mtol]

I own one L-mount lens and two bodies, with about 40 adapted vintage lenses.

I could imagine kitting up if I was on Fuji X mount or Micro 43s, but I made a decision at some point to put everything into EF mount so that I could jump between camera systems when the time comes.

[ntblowz]

RF lens have price for both High/Mid/Low atm so I m actually fine with it (haven't got RF L lens, but no need to), I just got the RF 45mm 1.2 recently, no other 3rd party do F1.2 at such low price.

Beside you loss some function with 3rd party like slightly worser AF, no Dynamic Active IS and limiting FPS for high speed shooting on some brand, and incompatible issues with new body or new firmware.

When I was with Sony the only 3rd party lens I got is tamron 28-200mm cause sony 24-240mm sucks, the rest of my len is G/GM lens.  The old Zeiss 24-70mm F4 is really showing the age vs newer zoom lens except the 28-70mm 2.8 lol.  Currently I use some Sigma lens on my S1II and there is a difference on AF tracking/hunting vs Panasonic lens, but at least I dont get limited to 15FPS or no Active IS..

[Andrew Reid]

3 hours ago, EduPortas said:

That each camera owner of a particular brand buys, in this case, 1.7 lenses for his camera.

Haha. I am not one of those then...

Lenses are more important than cameras, really.

It's true a lot of people are happy with one modern 24-70mm F2.8 for silly prices like $2k that can only be used on ONE camera and maybe a fast 50mm... F1.2? for another $2k (fuck me... no wonder they don't own many), maybe a longer lens - 70-200mm perhaps for 2 grand or whatever, that is 6 grand totally down the drain.

Just get a good 35mm prime and learn to use back-button AF.

I don't understand why they think the heavy zooms are such a great option.

The 24-70s are massive and don't have the character of a nice 35mm F1.4.

28mm or 35mm are a fantastic focal lengths... Not too wide for people shots, easy to crop to a 50mm FOV. The do-it-all lenses.

Give me a small 28mm F2 like the Leica Q over a DSLR 24-70 any day...

I have the images to prove it!

[Snowfun]

3 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Lenses are more important than cameras, really

I suspect that for the majority of working professionals, convenience > image quality. Hence the use of zooms rather than primes. And, let’s be honest, the image quality of good zooms isn’t too shabby! 

Those of us with time on our hands - no commercial deadlines - playing with M mount lenses is great fun. I’m certainly enjoying my Voigtlander VM Apo 28,35,50 set.

[Andrew Reid]

50 minutes ago, Snowfun said:

working professionals

Ah yes, I've never liked them either 🙂